Jim Knight: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
	It is pleasure to be able to return to this Bill so soon after the summer recess. Given what the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has just said about off-road vehicles, it is especially appropriate that we should begin with this new clause, which would give the national park authorities powers to make traffic regulation orders in respect of unsealed roads. The new clause follows points made in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).
	Some national park authorities already carry out limited highway authority functions in respect of rights of way, which are delegated to them by agreement with their local highway authority under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. However, it is unclear whether those agreements are able to cover the making of traffic regulation orders.
	Therefore, national park authorities must rely on negotiations with the local authority when they want to impose a TRO. That process can be time consuming and resource intensive, and the outcome is often uncertain. As I said in Committee in response to the points made by the hon. Members to whom I have referred, I believe that the national park authorities should have the necessary tools to manage traffic effectively on recreational routes in the national parks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2—Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search with a warrant—
	'(1) If, on an application by a constable or an inspector, a justice of the peace is satisfied—
	(a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—
	(i) an offence under section 43 is being or has been committed on any premises, or
	(ii) evidence of the commission of an offence under section 43 is to be found on any premises, and
	(b) that one or more of the conditions in subsection (2) is met,
	he may issue a warrant authorising a constable or an inspector to enter the premises and each them for evidence of the commission of an offence under section 43.
	(2) The conditions are—
	(a) in the case of any part of premises which is not used as a private dwelling, that the occupier of the premises has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant;
	(b) in the case of any part of premises which is not used as a private dwelling, that the occupier of the premises—
	(i) has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and the reasons for that decision.
	(ii) has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by a person mentioned in section [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] (1), and
	(iii) has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant;
	(c) in either case—
	(i) that the premises are unoccupied, or the occupier is absent, and notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
	(ii) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant is inappropriate because—
	(a) it would defeat the object of entering the premises, or
	(b) entry is required as a matter of urgency.
	(3) References in subsection (2) to the occupier of premises, in relation to any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft, are to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft, and "unoccupied" shall be construed accordingly.
	(4) Sections 15 and 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) shall have effect in relation to a warrant issued under this section to an inspector as they have effect in relation to a warrant so issued to a constable.
	(5) A constable or an inspector exercising powers under a warrant issued under this section may (if necessary) use such force as is reasonable in the exercise of those powers.'.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 16, line 11, leave out Clause 44.
	Amendment No. 4, in clause 44, page 16, line 13, after 'premises', insert
	'which he has reason to believe may be relevant.'.
	Amendment No. 9, in clause 45, page 16, line 31, leave out 'and 44' and insert
	', [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] and [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search with a warrant]'.
	Amendment No.10, page 16, line 41, at end insert—
	'(5) "Inspector" means—
	(a) a person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State to exercise the powers under sections [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] and [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search with a warrant] in relation to England;
	(b) a person authorised in writing by the National Assembly for Wales to exercise the powers under sections [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] and [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides; entry and search with a warrant] in relation to Wales.'.
	Government amendment No. 30

James Paice: We move on to a specific matter that was debated in Committee, so I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to address it again because it is important and needs to be examined further.
	We are worried about the open-ended nature of clause 44, which details the enforcement powers to be given to inspectors to deal with the Government's decision that is set out in clause 43 to make it an offence for people to possess certain chemicals that could be used to poison birds, primarily birds of prey. I emphasised in Committee and repeat now that we condemn anyone who unlawfully uses a chemical—a pesticide or whatever—to poison birds or mammals. It is already illegal to do that and we understand that the Government want an extra power to deal with the problem, but we are worried about the powers that will be given to inspectors.
	Clause 44(1)(a) states that an inspector will be able to
	"enter any premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence"
	has been committed. That does not require him to have reason to believe that the owner of those premises has committed an offence. An inspector will have carte blanche to go into any form of premises. That is excessive and, to be fair, I think that the Minister accepted that . I remind him of what he said in Committee:
	"It may be of some comfort to"
	me
	"to know that we have sympathy with amendment No. 65, which attempts to deal with the problem of fishing trips."
	He went on:
	"We cannot accept amendment No. 65 because it constrains our ability to deliver the clause properly. We understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed. We would like to go away and consider carefully",
	and so on. Hon. Members will understand my disappointment when, despite the Government's constructive approach and the considerable correspondence that the Minister sent to us in the recess, nothing has arisen to address that. As a result, we have tabled a new form of words in amendment No. 4 to ensure that the fishing trip, as he described—it was not my term—is prevented. The amendment would prevent inspectors from wandering into any property on the basis that they are looking to see whether an offence has been committed. They would need reasonable justification to do that.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 and new clauses 1 and 2 are closely related. They address our continuing concerns about the powers of inspectors and the contradictions in the Minister's responses in Committee. Paragraphs (b) and (c) in clause 44(1) are about inspectors collecting evidence. Yet the Minister made it clear in Committee that inspectors will not have powers under PACE when he stated:
	"Wildlife inspectors authorised under the Bill will not have powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act . . . Their function is purely to gather information that can inform a criminal investigation."
	Without repeating the earlier debate, I want to press him again.
	Clauses 43 and 44 deal with the use of pesticides to kill, primarily, birds of prey. Apart from an admission by the person who commits the offence, the most likely evidence to connect an individual to an offence is to find some of that pesticide or chemical on his property or in his possession. If the inspector uses his powers as set out in clause 44(1)(c) to seize and remove it, the only evidence will have gone, but it would not have been gathered under PACE. The Minister said:
	"If they"—
	the police—
	"are assisted by an inspector, they will be governed by the code of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 June 2005; c. 189–191.]
	However, there is no use going back to the premises because the inspector will have already taken the evidence outside the terms of PACE. Even given my scant knowledge of the law—gathered through being responsible on behalf of the Opposition for police issues for three years—I know that, if evidence is not gathered under the terms of PACE, it is not admissible in court. The fundamental evidence that will be part of the prosecution's case—it may be the main point of the prosecution—will somehow be lost. I am concerned that the Government have not thought through what they are trying to do.
	New clauses 1 and 2 repeat what was tabled in Committee. The Minister knows that they are a direct lift from his Department's draft Animal Welfare Bill. I understand that the Bill is likely to be presented later this week. Whether the provisions remain in the Bill remains to be seen.
	In Committee, the Minister said that he had not read the draft Bill. I know that it is not his direct responsibility within the Department, but I hope that he has now read it.
	Our contention is that the law should be consistent. The prevention of an animal's current suffering is more urgent than resolving who killed a bird of prey. Both matters are extremely important, but relieving suffering must be more urgent than dealing with something after the event. Yet we have the contradiction that in the Bill the powers given to an inspector in dealing with the poisoning of birds of prey appear to be far wider, more draconian and much less constrained by PACE than the powers given to dealing with current suffering of animals in the draft Animal Welfare Bill. That is wrong.
	Our contention is straightforward. It is that these analogous issues—the powers of inspectors and dealing with prosecutions—should be dealt with in the same way. That would make the situation clearer for everyone to understand. Our position is logical, given the analogy between the two different but related issues, which are both concerned with the protection of our flora and fauna. They should be governed by the same set of guidelines and rules for inspection, investigation and prosecution.
	I have set out the reasons why we tabled the new clauses and amendments. I hope that, given the three months that the Minister has had to reflect on the issues, he will now consider that changes need to be made.

John Randall: When I first saw the new clauses and amendments, I was tempted to speak against them. In the last Parliament, I considered tabling a ten-minute Bill on pesticides and, in particular, the killing of birds of prey. As many Members will know, I have a keen interest in ornithology, and I have looked into this matter.
	I do not think that any Member has any time for those who use pesticides illegally to poison birds of prey, other birds, domestic animals or pets. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) Lady said, the reintroduction in my constituency of the red kite has been very successful. As Members travel down the M40, many of them doubtless often see red kites near Stokenchurch, for example. They have spread far and wide and have even been seen in the London borough of Hillingdon in winter. That is wonderful, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and all those concerned should be congratulated. Interestingly, awareness of this development has perhaps led some estates—we do not have the very large estates that are to be found elsewhere in the country—to clean up their act. Buzzards, which used to be seen only in the west country, are now to be found much closer to London. I have seen them, for example, in the Wycombe area and among the wonderful beech woods of the Chilterns.
	I was therefore dubious about this provision, as I tend to be on the side of the birds in these matters, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) that we must consider the question of proportionality. I do not necessarily have doubts about some inspectors going over the top, but the danger is that we will lose credibility in the eyes of some if they think that the powers given to deal with this offence are greater than those given to deal with many others. Unfortunately, granting these powers is not necessarily going to solve the problem; rather, what is needed is education. We need to tell gamekeepers that these birds are not predating on what they are trying to preserve on their estates, be it for shooting or other purposes.
	I somewhat reluctantly point out that there are a couple of minor flaws in the drafting of the new clause. That is inevitable because, as I have noticed over our years in opposition, we do not always have the skills available to make such provisions absolutely watertight. [Interruption.] I do indeed speak for myself, as I do not claim any expertise on these matters. But I have a great deal of sympathy with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and the Government should also be congratulated on taking this issue seriously. That said, we need to be sure that we do not go overboard by granting too many powers at once. As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said, if the authorities in question say that they need more powers, we should perhaps return to this question.

James Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is exactly our contention. Many land owners have made available former sandpits and other such sites for people to do the most amazing things with four-wheel drives or trail bikes. I have seen it myself. Members of my family have done it and I have been frightened silly watching them. It is done on land that they have paid for permission to use and the fee goes to meet the cost of repair and maintenance.
	The Minister has looked carefully at the possibility of carrying out a sustainability assessment for trail management—the voluntary approach that he has rightly been trying to thrash out with users. I congratulate him on his attempt to find a voluntary solution and I congratulate the motoring organisation Land Access and Recreation Association, but frankly I do not believe that it can work for two reasons. First, the devised scoring system, when viewed reasonably objectively, is heavily weighted towards approval of the byway as a BOAT. There is no real process for ensuring that the byways are maintained or for dealing with the problem of regulating people who are not members of associations.
	Secondly, new evidence that I wish to cite to the House suggests that at least some members of the TRF are using the process as a smokescreen. I wish to read out a few quotes from the federation's confidential website, which we have managed to access. One states:
	"Word is we have to be prepared to have the claims for our '100 lanes' poised and ready to go, if necessary, the same or following day that the Bill is enacted".
	Another quote reads:
	"But, for sure, we need to be poised to claim at the drop of a hat."
	A further quote states:
	"Research all you want to ride and prepare the schedule 14 applications in readiness for the lifting of the moratorium on claiming BOATS. We know that has worked where members have become more active, because 6 counties have a hell of a lot of BOAT claims."
	I have many more such quotes, all of which emphasise to me and many other observers that there is, at least among some members of the organisation, a conspiracy to provide a vast increase in the number of applications for BOATs the moment that the Bill becomes law, if the Government agree to the voluntary approach.

Jim Knight: It is not up to me when I am called to speak in the debate. I am happy to hear all of the thoughts of hon. Members on both sides of the House in representing their constituents. Having done so, perhaps it is a good time for me to answer all of their thoughts.

Anne Snelgrove: I want to thank the Minister for offering an open door to Members from all parts of the House. He has responded to letters, emails, phone calls, texts and face-to-face lobbying—and that is just from me; heaven knows what the sum total of such lobbying has been across the House. He has met all of this with courtesy and good humour, and I am sure that he will continue to do so, and to show the flexibility that he is known for, throughout the rest of our deliberations. This is an important Bill for the countryside, and I say that having experienced in the past week the lasting effect of 4x4s on one of the most important national trails in the English countryside. That is why I hope that the Minister will ensure that this Bill is enacted as soon as possible.
	Last Friday, I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Ramblers Association, the Cyclists' Touring Club and the Friends of the Ridgeway at Barbury castle, in my constituency. All of them agreed that this Bill is important to the Ridgeway national trail. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that it is important for cyclists as well, and I pay tribute to her eloquence. I will not repeat her arguments, but I totally agree with them.
	I have the honour of being vice-president of the Friends of the Ridgeway—one that I share with other Members. They know, as Members throughout the House know, the damage that 4x4s have done to some of the most delicate country lanes and paths on that route. Indeed, some two years after 4x4s were banned from the paths that I visited on Friday, there are still deep ruts in the ground, which is why this Bill must be enacted as soon as possible. This is not a sustainable state of affairs for the countryside that my South Swindon constituents and the people of the surrounding villages enjoy so much.
	In response to one of my letters, the Minister wrote to me on 31 July, saying that he had
	"met representatives from a number of motor vehicle user groups and invited them to exercise voluntary restraint in submitting byway claims. I called on them to come up with, and put into practice, a protocol whereby motor vehicle users will only put in claims for routes that are suitable for motor vehicle use."
	He said that this would be
	"an opportunity for those groups to show that they will be responsible and submit only claims that are for sustainable routes."
	He further said that he had made it clear to them
	"that if they do not, I will commence the proposed legislation at the earliest possible date."
	We have heard today from all parts of the House that a responsible attitude has not been shown.
	I thank the Minister for listening, and I hope that he will enact this legislation as soon as possible.

John Randall: I rise to speak briefly to this group of amendments, and especially to amendment my No. 35. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for bringing new clause 5 forward, but with all due respect to him I confess that I am not sure that this Bill is the most appropriate place for it. It is possible that his proposals would be more suited to the Animal Welfare Bill. However, this is an important matter, and there are many arguments to be made.
	I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said about the CITES species, but we must be very careful, as there are more factors than he may appreciate. It may not be appropriate to discuss those factors in this debate, as other matters need to be considered before the 9 o'clock guillotine but, as an ornithologist, I take slight issue with the families of birds included in new clause 5(4)(ii). I used to lead bird tours abroad in a professional capacity, and am therefore acquainted with many of the species listed in the new clause. For example, the Cracidae family includes curassows and guans, which could be caught in the forests of central and southern America. In addition, the term "turkey" covers much more than the birds with which most people are familiar, as among the wild species of turkey is the ocellated turkey of central America. Moreover, the Megapodiidae family covers the fascinating group of birds that build mounds in which to incubate their eggs. Such birds include the mallee fowl and the brush turkey.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 28, line 20, leave out Clause 70—[Jim Knight.]

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 29, line 1, leave out Clause 71—[Jim Knight.]

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 29, line 17, leave out Clause 72—[Jim Knight.]

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 30, line 3, leave out Clause 73—[Jim Knight.]

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 30, line 32, leave out Clause 74—[Jim Knight.]

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 30, line 36, leave out Clause 75—[Jim Knight.]

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 31, line 12, leave out Clause 76—[Jim Knight.]

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 31, line 33, leave out Clause 77—[Jim Knight.]

Civil Aviation Authority

CORRECTION

10 October 2005: In col. 114, under "Noes" insert Jim Sheridan.